Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 221 posts

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#21

Post by hx87 »

Practicality wrote: post #11
merpnderp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectivity is listed as a problem with science curriculum. Welcome to the future. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&co...

While I am not a big fan of contemporary feminism, I am pretty sure taking issue with masculinity or "gendered" text is not the same thing as taking issue with objectivity. Edit: Found this quote in your source "Poststructuralism “rejects objectivity and the notions of an absolute truth and single reality,”" Hmm, this seems an awful lot like a religion.

It's pretty trivial to take the Ibn Warraq approach, though: just reject poststructuralism itself.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#22

Post by hx87 »

alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

Even if feelings have everything to do with science, isn't getting errors in your paper pointed out a good thing that you should be happy about?

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#23

Post by douche »

alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

I guess I can accuse my compiler of bullying me.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#25

Post by snerbles »

schmichael wrote: post #18
snerbles wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a statistical result deviates from APA format, statcheck will not find it. Incentive for authors to obfuscate their math?

It'd be easier for them to not obfuscate and use the checker themselves prior to publishing.

True, assuming no malfeasance on the part of the authors.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#26

Post by trjordan »

alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

They weren't looking for errors in papers and trying to push for corrections or improve the science. They were using these errors as fodder for promoting their software.

It might not be bullying, but it's not coming from a place of objectivity or honest debate.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#27

Post by nkrisc »

merpnderp wrote: post #7
alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

Objectivity is listed as a problem with science curriculum. Welcome to the future. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&co...

This appears to be about STEM education, not STEM fields directly.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#28

Post by cafebeen »

alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

Well, scientists are people too, so they have feelings and are not perfect. I think there are polite ways provide criticism and corrections, hopefully without humiliating people with good intentions. If it's a simple mistake, they can email the author and suggest an erratum. If it's more serious, then it's common to write a response in the journal. I think more public forms of criticism are perceived as bullying because a general audience can't typically judge the magnitude of the error, since they're not scientists working in the field, so it can be unjustly damaging to someone's reputation.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#29

Post by wyager »

cafebeen wrote: post #28
alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

Well, scientists are people too, so they have feelings and are not perfect. I think there are polite ways provide criticism and corrections, hopefully without humiliating people with good intentions. If it's a simple mistake, they can email the author and suggest an erratum. If it's more serious, then it's common to write a response in the journal. I think more public forms of criticism are perceived as bullying beca…

If someone objectively screwed up a published study, there's no room for feelings or social consideration. People might be wasting their precious time and money pursuing impossible goals based on the incorrect study.

Let's say someone finds a mistake in a math paper. Do they politely ask the author to fix it? What happens if the author ignores them? The scientific community doesn't have time to coddle and pursue every mistaken author. Everyone makes mistakes, and the scientific community knows that, but those mistakes need to be brought into then open, not (maybe) resolved behind closed doors.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#30

Post by cortesoft »

wyager wrote: post #29
cafebeen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, scientists are people too, so they have feelings and are not perfect. I think there are polite ways provide criticism and corrections, hopefully without humiliating people with good intentions. If it's a simple mistake, they can email the author and suggest an erratum. If it's more serious, then it's common to write a response in the journal. I think more public forms of criticism are perceived as bullying beca…

If someone objectively screwed up a published study, there's no room for feelings or social consideration. People might be wasting their precious time and money pursuing impossible goals based on the incorrect study. Let's say someone finds a mistake in a math paper. Do they politely ask the author to fix it? What happens if the author ignores them? The scientific community doesn't have time to coddle and pursue ever…

I think there is some nuance here; not all screw ups are equal, nor are all ways of correcting mistakes equal.
Post reply on HN